Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:59 am These videos partly HELP in explaining WHY 'that country' has 'its', 'current' to today's writing, so-called "leader", and the preceding "one".

The debate year in the history of the world was 2014 for the winners of the big trophy, when the so-called leader of the country was the Champion of Fundamental Change.

Past "events" LEAD UP TO and CREATE 'current' "events".

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:15 am Maybe the trophy was for who could most fundamentally change debate. Fast-talking nonsense with grunted breathing is a fundamental change.

Fast, or slow, talking NONSENSE, as I was SAYING, and POINTING OUT, partly HELPS IN EXPLAINING HOW the 'current' and preceding so-called "leaders" got VOTED IN.

Considering the number of actual adult human beings in that country, in the days when this was being written, it makes some WONDER HOW and WHY that country ended up WITH 'those two' CHOICES. And, even 'today' when this is being written, 'those two' STILL seem to be the so-called 'front runners'.

Which makes one WONDER WHAT TYPE OF 'race', WERE 'they' RUNNING, in 'that country', BACK THEN?

Perhaps LuckyR can clear this up.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:26 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:55 am The debate year in the history of the world was 2014 for the winners of the big trophy, when the so-called leader of the country was the Champion of Fundamental Change.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:55 am Maybe the trophy was for who could most fundamentally change debate. Fast-talking nonsense with grunted breathing is a fundamental change.

Not even on her best days.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:43 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 5:29 pm Wow! Thanks for proving my point so emphatically!

I guess this sort of thing wins formal debates but is so offputting psychologically that if someone used that style in the office place they'd be escorted out by security. In other words no one in history has changed the mind of a verbal opponent or likely a third person observer, with that rhetorical style.

That indicates that the intent of the performances is not to convince, explain or persuade.

I agree (somewhat, as I am not part of that community), though that brings a unique meaning to the word "debate".

Sounds intriguing—I'd recommend checking out "Millionenschwere Gewohnheiten" by Brian Tracy. It's a mind-bending journey into logic, creativity, and the essence of thought. Happy reading.

If you want to win debates or be good at them, then Argument Theory books would suit better for your goals.
Famous authors in the field are Walton, Reed, Macagno, and some Dutch named writers come to mind.